Go here to read the rest. To give the old heresiarch his due, I do think that Luther would be horrified by this trivialization of the great issues at stake at the time of the so-called Reformation. As for me, I might buy it. Cali, my Jack Russell terrier, is always on the lookout for new dog toys to chew.

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

“To give the old heresiarch his due, I do think that Luther would be horrified by this trivialization of the great issues at stake at the time of the so-called Reformation.”
I would apply to Luther Miss Anscombe assessment of David Hume:-
“I will now return to Hume. The features of Hume’s philosophy which I have mentioned, like many other features of it, would incline me to think that Hume was a mere – brilliant – sophist; and his procedures are certainly sophistical. But I am forced, not to reverse, but to add to, this judgment by a peculiarity of Hume’s philosophizing: namely that although he reaches his conclusions – with which he is in love – by sophistical methods, his considerations constantly open up very deep and important problems. It is often the case that in the act of exhibiting the sophistry one finds oneself noticing matters which deserve a lot of exploring: the obvious stands in need of investigations as a result of the points that Hume pretends to have made. In this, he is unlike, say, Butler. It was already well known that conscience could dictate vile actions; for Butler to have written disregarding this does not open up any new topics for us. But with Hume it is otherwise: hence he is a very profound and great philosopher, in spite of his sophistry. “